YNAB MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources (e.g., accounts, budgets, categories, months, transactions, payees, scheduled transactions) with no overlap in functionality. The 'get_' tools retrieve detailed information for single items, while 'list_' tools return collections, making them easily distinguishable.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' for retrieving single items and 'list_' for retrieving collections, using snake_case throughout. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and usability for agents.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a budgeting application, covering key entities like budgets, accounts, categories, months, transactions, and payees. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive read operations (get and list) for all major resources in YNAB, supporting core budgeting workflows. However, it lacks write operations (e.g., create, update, delete) for transactions, categories, or budgets, which could limit agent functionality for full lifecycle management.
Average 3/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on February 2, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing how it behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific account'). It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without wasting tokens.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as hinting at return values or constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'a specific account' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (budget_id and account_id) clearly. The description doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., account_id is scoped to budget_id) or usage context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific account'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_accounts' or 'get_budget', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single account by ID rather than listing multiple accounts or fetching other resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing both budget_id and account_id), contrast with 'list_accounts' for multiple accounts, or specify use cases like retrieving account details for editing or reporting. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' and 'current month data,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned, format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior, warranting a low score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get detailed information about a specific category including current month data.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating scope (e.g., 'Retrieves detailed category data, such as budget amounts and transactions, for the current month'), but it's still highly concise, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context: no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with full coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields like name, budgeted amount, activity), how 'current month data' is defined or formatted, or the return structure. For a tool that likely returns complex data (implied by 'detailed'), more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, resulting in a low score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'budget_id' and 'category_id.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that these IDs are used to fetch category details and current month data. Since the schema already fully describes the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance or contradict the schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific category including current month data.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('category'), and scope ('detailed information... including current month data'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_categories' tool that presumably lists multiple categories without detailed data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_budget' or 'get_month' in terms of resource hierarchy, keeping it at a 4 rather than a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a budget_id and category_id), compare it to 'list_categories' for overviews versus detailed views, or specify use cases like retrieving current month data for analysis. With no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it scores a 2 for minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed budget information' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the data returns (e.g., JSON structure), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed budget information for a specific month') and adds a useful detail ('including all category balances'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving detailed financial data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), output format, or usage context relative to siblings. While the purpose is clear, the description fails to compensate for the missing structured information, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('budget_id' and 'month') fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by implying the parameters are used to fetch month-specific data, but it doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states (e.g., explaining 'month' format 'YYYY-MM-01' is covered in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed budget information for a specific month including all category balances.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('budget information'), and scope ('for a specific month'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_budget' or 'list_months' by focusing on month-level details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_categories' or 'list_transactions' in terms of data granularity, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget_id), exclusions (e.g., not for year-level data), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_budget' (overall budget) or 'list_months' (month summaries). Usage is implied by the description but lacks explicit context for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information (implying read-only), but doesn't address permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information'. It doesn't explain what details are returned, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('budget_id' and 'transaction_id') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond implying these IDs are needed, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific transaction'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_transactions' or 'get_account', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a transaction ID), contrast with 'list_transactions' for multiple transactions, or specify use cases for detailed versus summary views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential errors (e.g., invalid budget_id), rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination for large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all budget months') and adds necessary detail about return values. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from output details).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or return format specifics (beyond high-level fields). It meets basic needs but leaves gaps for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'budget_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). According to scoring rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all budget months'), and specifies what data is returned ('month summaries with income, budgeted, and activity totals'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_month' by indicating it retrieves multiple months rather than a single month. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* tools like 'list_budgets' or 'list_transactions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_month' (for single month details) or 'list_budgets' (for listing budgets first). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., payee details, format), behavioral constraints, or how it fits within the broader toolset, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'budget_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameter is required, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all payees for a budget'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_accounts' or 'list_transactions' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid budget ID, or compare it to similar list operations in sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns multiple items, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'scheduled/recurring transactions' entail, how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving gaps in understanding for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'budget_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('scheduled/recurring transactions for a budget'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_transactions' or 'get_transaction', which might handle similar data, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_transactions' or 'get_transaction', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Supports filtering' but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and filtering options. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough detail for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without relying heavily on the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions filtering by date, type, category, payee, and account, but the schema already documents these parameters with detailed descriptions. No additional semantics, constraints, or examples are provided, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions for a budget'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transaction' (singular) and 'list_scheduled_transactions' by focusing on general transactions with filtering, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_accounts' or 'list_categories' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_transaction' (for a single transaction) or 'list_scheduled_transactions' (for scheduled ones), leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), but does not address permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. The description lacks details on what 'detailed information' entails or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'budget_id' fully documented in the schema (including the special value 'last-used'). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('budget'), specifying what information is retrieved ('detailed information about a specific budget including accounts, categories, and settings'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_budgets' by focusing on a single budget rather than listing multiple, but does not explicitly contrast with other get_* tools (e.g., get_account).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over 'list_budgets' for a single budget or other get_* tools for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all accounts') and returns specific fields, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the action and return data without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return fields, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and usage guidelines, which are needed for a complete understanding despite the simple schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with one parameter ('budget_id') clearly documented, so the baseline is 3. The description implies the parameter is needed ('for a budget') but doesn't explain format, validation, or usage context, offering no extra value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all accounts for a budget' specifies the verb (get) and resource (accounts), and 'Returns account names, types, balances, and status' indicates the scope of returned data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account' (singular vs. plural) or 'list_budgets' (accounts vs. budgets), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a budget ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_account' (for single accounts) or 'list_transactions' (for different resource types). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes 'budgeted amounts and activity', which gives some context about what data is returned, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), error handling, pagination, or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all categories for a budget') and adds useful details without waste. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying scope and included data, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks output schema, so the description's mention of 'budgeted amounts and activity' partially compensates, but it doesn't fully explain return values or behavioral traits. With no annotations, it should do more to be complete, but it meets minimum viability for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'budget_id' documented as 'The budget ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('categories for a budget'), and it provides additional detail about the grouping ('grouped by category group') and included data ('budgeted amounts and activity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_category', which appears to fetch a single category rather than all categories for a budget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_category' or 'list_budgets'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget ID) or contextual cues for selection among the many list/get tools available. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns budget names, IDs, and last modified dates, which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool involving user data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get all budgets for the authenticated user') and follows with output details. Every part earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the return values, but without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on authentication needs, data format, or potential limitations, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates by not misleading about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get all budgets') and resource ('for the authenticated user'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_budget' (singular) by indicating it retrieves multiple budgets. It provides explicit output details (budget names, IDs, and last modified dates), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it retrieves budgets for the authenticated user, suggesting it should be used when listing all budgets rather than a specific one (as with 'get_budget'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_accounts' or provide exclusions, leaving some context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ynab-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeangnc/ynab-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeangnc/ynab-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ynab-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeangnc/ynab-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeangnc/ynab-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jeangnc/ynab-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server